Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

The point wasn't that he is demanding to much, the point is that he has real issues. Its not something vague like he hates freedom. Its real problems. Which means someone who is fighting because of the reasons listed, may actually talk to you. You have a real chance of convincing them they are wrong.

We can disagree with them, but it shows it is something that can be talked about.

Originally Posted by Alric

The point wasn't that he is demanding to much, the point is that he has real issues. Its not something vague like he hates freedom. Its real problems. Which means someone who is fighting because of the reasons listed, may actually talk to you. You have a real chance of convincing them they are wrong.

We can disagree with them, but it shows it is something that can be talked about.

You cannot have a rational conversation with somebody that irrational. It would be like trying to convince Charles Manson that he was wrong and needs to apologize. There is nothing realistic about the idea.

Sure there is. Its basicly a large rant with all the problems he has with the US. Realisticly he probably doesn't expect us to do everything. He would probably be happy with us doing a quarter of the stuff on the list. Obviously everyone knows that wont happen so we kill each other. Saddly its the way the world works.

The issues he has with the US are totally rational and probably a fairly common view of us. Whats not rational is the part of him trying to kill people. And thats definitely a bad thing. Not everyone who may help him, is so firm however. They read the list and maybe they agree with it. Maybe they think the US is full of jerks so the support them. Not all of them are going to be as extreme however.

No one ever said you could sit down with Bin Laden and convince him he is wrong about us. When it comes to a lot of his followers however? Its entirely possible and has happened. The rational people who agree with his valid points get caught up with the nut cases too. Its a mistake to say they are all the same though, that none of them can be reasoned with or talked to.

His views are rational? You think we should outlaw homosexuality? Let's start with that so we don't have to keep speaking in vague terms. He demands that we no longer "permit immoral acts" such as "homosexuality". Where do you stand on that one?

And remember, he said that we have to meet "all" of his demands or else "fight with the Islamic nation".

People who are willing to die in order to kill in the name of that are pretty far gone from rational.

His point of usury is actually a huge problem in our country. Infact our economy is based on it, which is why our markets are so unstable. The so called drug war, huge mistake, costs tons of money doesn't solve anything. Nothing wrong with a little gaming but the gambling large companies do with other peoples money, really sucks. People are always complaining about women being exploited here(Though most don't take them seriously.) All the porn and crap he has a point on though that one is actually a freedom issue. Polution is a huge problem, theres no question we are the worst coutnry in the world when it comes to doing damage to nature. How they do campaigns funds is actually something a lot of people are worried about and trying to fix. We did infact drop a nuke to japan cant get out of that one. He also has a fair point that we allow israel to build nukes while banning other countries such as iran, and we do it because they are our friends. Israel also does ignore tons of UN resolutions and we don't care, while we do punish other countries that do the same.

All of them a real issues and most have nothing to with being free. Some of them do but most don't.

But he demands that we meet ALL of the demands for them to call off their war against us.

So...(at the risk of keeping this thread on it's intended track. There is just too much that has been said that I disagree with, but not much that touched on the actual issue)...no one has convinced me that the Administration is right to tell the American people that "The U.S. Does Not Torture." By all accepted definitions (even those of the U.N.), we do, even by the standards of the interrogations of the past. Is it right that the Administration just uses so arbitrary, made-up definition of "torture," when telling us they don't do it - undermining what the public (well...most of us) already understand is the meaning of the true, wide-ranging, meaning of the word?

Do you think the Administration doesn't understand this concept? I doubt that. It, then, makes me wonder what other "truths" are skewed, arbitrarily. There is hardly a thing in the world that can't be explained away by stretching or distorting the facts.

Don't get me wrong, I love my country just as much as the next American and (regardless of what anyone wants to misinterpret my point as) I believe in killing those - only those - that are trying to kill us, but I despise misinformation from those who we count on for the truth. When certain things are set in motion, there are just too many people who remain ignorant of the very real (and, in no sense, new) concept of government manipulation and have a knee-jerk reaction not to listen to anything that opposes their emotional investment. On a not-so-literal scale, in relation to the war, they are still stuck on Bush's "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists," comment.

Personally, I would rather they leave it at "We are not at liberty to discuss our interrogation techniques" than just telling us, flat out, that they "do not torture." I wouldn't be completely at ease, knowing that there are probably innocent men being subjected to these unknown techniques, (they had one such man on CNN the other day) than feeling that we are being lied to.